Comments

I respect your position, and I hold it as having some definite validity. In our current economy, especially in the current region, we absolutely need the economic and fuel boom that the coal industry provides to our community. However, some of the specifics of your argument I feel are misinformed.

While coal right now is affordable, it most definitely is not affordable, which is one of the biggest problems this bill that you are so opposed to seeks to rectify. I notice, when reading this piece of legislation, as provided by the Colorado General Assembly, that there is no mention of actually cutting jobs, or anything of the like. It seems that the most bold assertion the bill makes is that is attempts to establish regulations for cutting emissions from coal burning plants.

To say that this bill is going to be cutting hundreds, or more, jobs, is simply not true. This piece of legislation is a necessary one, one that will, in all likelihood, set restrictions and regulations on our nation's energy producers in regards to what they emit into the atmosphere, which is something that is only sorely needed.

I feel as though your argument echoes a lot of rhetoric that some have for anything that seeks to put some kind of limitation onto those industries that have the highest rates of pollution, and especially that of the energy industry itself. While some small-scale negatives will surely be soon, the net result will be massively beneficial not only for our economy locally and statewide, but for our environment as well.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that coal is "most definitely not affordable." It has historically been very affordable and continues to become cheaper. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/02/energy_transition There was a bubble in 2008, which it turns out permeated a lot of the economy, but prices right now are again very low. My understanding of the bill is that it is motivated by one thing: environmental goals. Government does not have to be concerned with prices of energy inputs because the market is pretty good at adjusting to those variables. The problem with implementing a state plan to address pollution is that you are handicapping your state against all other states. Pollution truly is a national and global problem. The bill is a blatant example of catering to environmentalists as a political move, not as an effective policy decision to combat pollution. It also ignores the improvements in clean coal technology and the potential for more improvements in that regard. It basically pits two different energy industries against each other and chooses natural gas as the winner. It is the epitome of bad governance in my opinion.